Back in the "old days" (medieval), Beer was preserved by adding Lant, to give Lanted Ale.
Lant is stale urine, and it acted as a marvelous preservative. So, adding urine in this fashion to that volume won't be a problem. It's just one of perception..

Nice when you get the time to develop every system from scratch, and don't have multiple departments saying "We need this now". And actually meaning it.
Then having to ensure that what you've put in place stays up with a 24x7x365 uptime requirement, and recoverability to the last transaction.
Oh, and hey, this thing that some department has purchased because they couldn't wait for the system to created, it only runs on another version of Linux (or on Windows with SQL Server!).. They need that put in there too.. You say no? The execs say yes, as they're already bought into it.
And the regular programming load while you're setting this in? Not getting any lighter.
Building things back to initial point in time is simple; any full fledged config management system can do that at the press of a button. Keeping it running, tuned, and error free.. That's the interesting bit.

A working DevOps group should be an amalgamation of the Dev team and Ops teams.
Trying to forge one team where everyone knows everything simply sets a level of mediocrity; you can research so far down an avenue in a given time, and get only so good at it.
I've learned from the ground up (i.e. electronics, basics of VLSI, board design, basic OS design, all layers of the stack programming), and went from there on to system admin. Then did a stint as a developer using the knowledge that I had from my earlier history, and found that the sysop area of my knowledge atrophied in the detail (and the devil is _always_ in the detail) the more I concentrated on being a better dev.
Went back to more of the operator/business side of things, and lo and behold, the more I go into systems and how to put together a proper reliable, recoverable infrastructure, the more my dev is atrophying. I'm half management these days, which means the ops side _and_ the dev side are both atrophying. The guys that do it in a dedicated fashion are more familiar with the latest tech than I am..

You can be a jack of all trades.. But I seriously hope a company doesn't rely on you to get them out of trouble when the fecal matter hits the fan.. If you've been spending most of your time developing, with the nod to tuning the servers so your app runs better, you're not likely to have been able to put the time in to develop the wider infrastructure to support things going fubar, or had the time and concentration to really work out what is likely to get you.

Having a few people marked as DevOps would be useful when you need to populate a middle ground.. They can work with both dedicated ops, and dedicated dev to ensure that scalability is baked in, and resilience is baked in to the apps. When it comes to ensuring the boxes are kept in tidy order for everyone, and get to be able to recover from the smoking ruins.. That's where the dedicated ops shine. When you really want that app to do something really slick, that's when a dedicated dev shines.

Small scale, a DevOps person would work. The larger you scale, the less appropriate it becomes (as the only solution; a big company with the techs being solely a DevOps team would scare me).

True, but if you really disagreed with it sufficiently, then you'd certainly not be donating money to them. At most, it would be an irrelevance. Except, of course, if you can use it against someone else to your advantage..

You know, it's practically impossible to do anything these days without supporting someone, or something that'll supress the rights of others..
Ever bought anything made in China? If you have, congratulations. You've funded the suppression of rights on a massive scale.

Where, oh where does he epouse the views that Gays are inferior to non-gay? You're setting up a straw man argument right there.
This is nothing to do with that at all. What's actually happened as an extension of all the racism laws is that if you're an ethnic minority, you actually get to be recist to everybody, and that's legally ok (affirmative action anyone? It's not positive discrimination of a small group, it's negative discrimination against a majority).
It seems that everyone seems to be saying "You're white, therefore you're racist".. Yet if your skin isn't white, you can throw around racial epithets and people fight your corner.. After being up in front of a tribunal for calling a co-councilor in Bristol "A coconunt" (brown on the outside, white on the inside, which is apparently a standard parlance in the Black/Ethnic Minority groups, and perfectly acceptable in their eyes, one councillor brown said in her defence, shocked that she was charged with being racist "I can't be racist because I'm black".
That's the view in the political factions all to often..
So perhaps that is what's happening with the LGBT scene these days.. They're generally socially accepted these days, the same as anyone else (actually, probably more so than me, because I'm an introvert by nature).. Just when someone isn't happy with it, they get a huge spitting mob behind them.
Another great example, a Gay couple wanted to stop in a B&B. When they said they wanted a double room together, the old lady running it said no.. She didn't want unmarried people sharing beds under her roof. There was a national scandal, and the landlady was hauled through the courts, and had the national newpapers hounding her (and making her quite ill). What came out at the end of this was that she didn't let _any_ unmarried people, gay, straight, whatever share beds (officially) under her roof as it made her uncomfortable. Everyone else was ok with this, or went elsewhere (she provided alternative places very locally that would cater to this quite happily).. Gay people stayed there and were happy (and she never had objection to that, or asked, or batted an eyelid if it was brought up). It was a Gay couple that decided that her wishes about unmarried sexual behaviour didn't apply to them. They made it all a political showcase, dragging her through the mud, even when it was made plain to them it was about anything but their being gay or not.
That's the problem with this focussed "anti-homophobia", "anti-racist" thing. It's gone from being a way of stopping very serious discrimination into being a weapon of discrimination against those you have a personal problem with.

"The articles just points out how much damage the bigot views of Mr. Eich could have caused Mozilla and the employees of Mozilla were more then justified to call for his resignation. If you believes and actions are damaging the company you are suppose to represent, then you are not fit to be the CEO."

His views weren't bigot views. He's very friendly with the LGBT community in general, but his views on marriage don't happen to coincide. He didn't go hounding them out of jobs etc. He just expressed a view, and put his money where his mouth is. You know, freedom of speech and all that. And freedom of religion (hey, Jesus is recorded in the Bible as being against gay marriage, so is it unsurprising that a religious guy would listen to that, and also go on record that he 'believes' in the teachings of his religion)?
So, harm to his employees? Not so much.
His actions (inventing JavaScript, founding the Mozilla foundation, attending talks and seriously doing a lot of good in the developer and open world) are what he should be judged by in terms of his fitness to run the company, and I find those credentials a lot better than the mob howling for blood.

So, if you think Google are perfectly in the right to withhold money from Mozilla because of someone's personal opinion, then is it also fine to start withholding money for pro LGBT organisations because they say things that you think may be damaging? Really? You're opening that Pandora's box?

By all means, consider the guy as having had a dickish moment in supporting the organisations. But considering that as something that makes him unworthy to run an organisation? Wow..

Well, Jesus was apparently against it too.. Doesn't stop any pro-gay marriage people saying Jesus was great and hanging off his every word.. Apart from that bit of course because lalalalalalalala..

Apart from it being a Religious term (in the Bible, it mentions that marriage is between a husband and wife, being man and woman).
That's part of the base scripture. Apparently the word of God.
So, you get people turning up and saying "I believe in the word of God, but I don't like that word of God, so I'm going to have the whole lot of you change your beliefs so I can feel happier".
Not saying that shouldn't happen, but when there are civil ceremonies around, it does seem very hypocritical.
Basically, what you're saying is "I want to get married in the eye of God", when God has put down that it is really not very happy with that happening at all. So by the belief system, what you're saying is "I wan't to flaunt this in front of you and there's sod all you can do about it".

A possibly less confrontational way round this is to just start a religion that does't have the figures that have said things in conflict with what you want to happen, and go with that, and its marriage systems and so on.

Also, this guy hasn't been educated in hard tech. So by his argument, he has no knowledge of it, as it deviates massively from his education.
Given that he has no knowledge of how it operates, dictating how it is going to operate is extremely likely to be entirely incorrect.
This is another example of "Everyone knows the sun and stars revolve around the earth" type thinking.

I can pretty much believe it..
In the Govenmental areas, there are so many people that are used to being able to say "Yes, but wouldn't it be a great idea if...".. And when they're told no, it's not possible in the current scope, they bring in all kinds of political manoeuvers to make life extremely difficult unless it gets added (and these manoeuvers can extend time drastically). So, more gets added that they should have identified initially. Or it can be a 'clarification'. "Oh, we meant this.. In this context.. Sort of. Until we change our minds."
They aren't used to thinking critically. They aren't used to doing specifications (and they actively resist attempts to perform a full specification gather, as "they don't have time for all those useless questions". They have "things to do,don't you know").
That's when it starts out as a big project.. Some smaller ones can actually start with a well defined set of requirements, and be entirely achievable. They other people hear that there's funding attached to a project, so they want a slice of the pie.. Get themselves on the steering groups, have the "bright ideas that weren't there originally that just _have_ to be put in there now", and move things in an entirely different direction. Or at least pull in it, as there are usually a whole bunch of people pulling in different directions, getting opposing things added to the requirements.

Sometimes you get lucky and find that there's someone with clout who is also technically savvy, and they can stamp on internal rubbish and let a project go properly.. Unfortunately, they're reasonably rare, and the voices that understand the reality of it are drowned out by the higher management that haven't touched tech, don't understand it, don't want to understand it, and believe if they have a bright idea, someone will wave a magic wand and the solution will magically appear.

Think you're confusing the acronym.. DRM in this context is Direct Rendering Manager.

So it's good for the individual. I suspect that for the society as a whole, it wouldn't be good for everyone to have that marker.
So sometimes people get to be more optimistic about things.. Great.. It's nice when I meet people like that, who pull me into their happy world (and yes, I appreciate it).. My own.. Well, I see the world without the niceties. I'm prone to depression. But there again, I get to use it in work, and in life. Out of the larger group, I'm usually the one who adds in the dose of reality when people need the hard advice, or a plan that has the greatest chance of succeeding. I prep them to get through tough times without sugar coating. I pick up on loads of things that people with a brighter mindset miss.
The disadvantage is that I'm not a happy-go-lucky person most of the time.
That's where the strength of real diversity comes in. A mix of mindsets covers all angles, and has a good chance of working more comfortably in the long haul. The group can play to the strengths of the individuals. The problems start when people start decreeing that their viewpoint is the only valid one in all cases. Unfortunately, religion has a lot of that in it. Not a problem for the individual, but perhaps a huge one for those around.

For very basic programming, the core is functional decomposition (breaking things down into manageable components). This is a hearty part of critical thinking, and problem solving.
Having more people familiar with that would help solve a lot of things.

Subtle does not have the biggest effect on a person's view of the world. Obvious does.
Subtle is if I try to get your attention by tapping you on the shoulder gently.
Obvious is if I whack you round the head with a cricket bat to gain your attention.
There are points when subtle does not matter one jot. It's used for delicacy and very minute adjustments (thus, subtle).